Abuse has been ported to SDL. You may want to dig up the current actively maintained version of Abuse rather than the old version. Nifty game, it has that Psygnosis feel to it.
Of course this could end up being bad, since SCO is owner of the (important note: singular not plural) operating system Linux.
SCO most certainly does not own Linux. At most they may have ownership of inappropriately included code. The vast majority of the Linux codebase is owned by individual and corporate contributes who have and had full rights to do so. Those copyright holders have every right to nail them for infringment. This is why they're spewing this "GPL is public domain." nonsense. They are even more guilty of copyright infringment than anyone who contributed inappropriate code to Linux. They're practicing "a good offense is better than a good defense".
Sooner or later, SCO will have to reveal their so-called evidence. The provenance of the code will be established and anything that doesn't belong will be removed. At that point they can go after the hapless idiots who contributed the 80 lines or so but that is it.
They can be said to own the Caldera variant but it was always a niche distro at best.
While we're on the subject, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark. They won't be claiming that for their own either.
Basic terms like "if" and "then" are reduced to tokens before compiling or interpreting. It wouldn't be that big a deal to translate them to english equivalents or any other language for that matter. Comments and variable names won't be much use to understanding such a translation though.
I rarely go to the theatres myself. We saw The Two Towers earlier this year and will get a babysitter for The Return of The King. Ticket prices being what they are; I have to know the movie is freakin' awesome ahead of time before I'll go. I get this knowledge by letting my friends see it first; I'm not downloading them...it would just be spoiler city for that THX big screen.
On the other hand, We buy 4-6 DVDs a year. It costs less than a night at the movies for both of us (soon to be all three when my little boy gets older) and we can watch it anytime we want.
My point is that its far cheaper to own a legal copy of the movie than it is for us to go see it. If the movie is only mildly entertaining then I'll wait until it goes out of new release at the rental store and watch it once for three bucks. When the economics weren't so bad, I'd see movies at the theatre all the time. Now I have to pick and choose for maybe two theatre experiences a year.
But the fact is that it is not up to us to dictate a business practice to the RIAA. They represent the copyright holders and it is their right to set the terms for distribution of the music under those copyrights.
That is true...technically. Like any cartel, the RIAA feels that it is entitled to a profit. If they could legally send hired goons to your house with briefcases full of Britney Spears CDs they would do it. At the moment, the copyright holders are exercising their right to set distribution terms that nobody else wants.
Theres another thing thats true. The customer is always right. The RIAA doesn't have a rebellion on their hands; its mass indifference. Sure they've scared people into being reluctant to download but that doesn't mean they'll go out and spend money. Even before the lawsuits, I quit using P2P because of mislabeling, bad rips, bad encoding, and low bitrates. I can't buy or download what I want so I'll do without. I have cable radio and my existing music collection. Good enough.
I'll buy used CDs and that's it. Even if the RIAA didn't completely offend me, they cost too much. We're a one income house and I have a child. I might buy one 8-10 dollar CD every month but I won't buy a 16 dollar one with any frequency. Add in their repugnant business practices and why would I want to give them money?
Nobody can tell me that music costs more to make than movies yet I can buy a DVD of a movie cheaper than it's soundtrack. The MPAA is repulsive too but at least I don't feel ripped off when I buy a DVD.
Yeah, the RIAA doesn't have to permit P2P and they can charge whatever they want and they can exercise their copyrights to the fullest. They just shouldn't be surprised if lots of potential customers give them a pass.
Before you do that, send them a letter asking to identify specifically which parts of Linux are infringing. Don't volunteer anything, just try to get them to elaborate as much as possible. Save all responses and their envelopes and give that to the authorities. Record any phone conversations and indicate at the start you are doing so.
Basically, if they admit on paper that they want payment from you for unsubstantiated claims then they're toast. If they won't admit it, save the copies of that as well. It will make an excellent shield if they try to take you to court. Any refusal to elaborate also makes a good spear if they try to bring collection and credit reporting agencies into it. You'll have a libel case.
What you want is a packet of papers that makes the scam SCO is pulling clear. The "invoice" they send you in and of itself won't mean much without the background information. Mr. Postal Inspector and A.G. probably won't know the blow by blow the way you do. They won't necessarily take your word for it either.
Well, we have three Trek shows named after a place or ship. There's Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise. I think this trend will continue with Berman and Braga's next creative masterpiece. Star Trek Deus Ex Machina. Tune in every week to see how they modify the transporter, holodeck, warp nacelles, or the deflector dish on the Deus Ex Machina to get out the latest jam. Marvel at the richly detailed Treknobabble! That chief engineer and science officer sure are smart!
The powers that be go out of their way to keep DMCA cases away from appellate courts much less the Supreme Court. MS could be providing the opening to force just that test. OSS doesn't even have to be brought into it. Proprietary software businesses are going to need to make software that interoperates with Office. MS really can't pick and choose here. Sure they can selectively ignore some products while prosecuting others but the ones they ignore will be brought up in court. Basically, the question of using the DMCA for anti-competitive purposes can only be put off not ignored.
Why on earth arent most drivers included with windows anyway? All builtin windows drivers are always really old and crappy. Unless you have a severely outdated computer, windows will be a 16 color, soundless, webless hell upon first boot. Except for XP which finally seems to get that no one sane uses 16 colors anymore, or even 640x480.
When a major MS release debuts, it is like that. When 98 first came out, chances were there would be a driver for every device in a then current PC. After about 6 months, it starts getting time to trawl through vendor websites for drivers. Pretty much the same thing happened when 2000 then XP came out.
Remember, most people just go with OEM installs on their new PCs which will have all the drivers. Its the likes of us that set up systems with full install CDs and the latest drivers from the vendors. MS doesn't really have to cater self-installers on their full install media. Anyone using it probably has enough clue to go find drivers.
Linux distros on the other hand attempt to provide you with everything you need. However, the trick there is to use a current distro CD. The same thing happens with distro CDs that happens with new major MS releases. They just occur more frequently.
so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.
That is a rather large assumption. The Windows XP activation scheme has been cracked since day one. For a popular product, activation means that less illicit use rather than no illicit use.
If you get it in the mail, turn it over to your state attorney general. Since they are attempting to collect on militantly unproven claims, you could probably make a good criminal case for fraud.
The money goes to the holding company. In real terms, it isn't SCO that is behind this. The Canopy Group is using SCO as a tool to extract FUD money from Linux and spread it amongst their various properties. Once SCO has served it's purpose, they can shed themselves of it.
Proscecute the businesses that hire the spammers. Roll on them extra hard if they don't give up the spammers they hire. Granted this only takes care of the domestic businesses doing this but if enough countries do it then spamming is no longer a low-cost/low-risk endevour.
What MS hopes is that they can lose money in the short or even middle term to kill OSS as a viable competitor. Once that pesky Linux has been dealt with they can go back to charging full price for the crack rocks.
Your scenario presupposes that OSS goes forwards irregardless of MS does. That may be so but don't underestimate them. Giving out free software in the short term combined with funding the likes of SCO in the medium term along with outlawing OSS in the long term could be fatal. Just because they're weasels doesn't mean they aren't smart.
I would have thought that these schools would not have had any reason whatsoever to let MS (or "antipiracy officials" in general) anywhere near their systems. If anything, I would have thought the Chinese education system was about as immune to this type of treatment as any group of people on the planet
I think China wants at least the appearance of playing by the rules. China is waking up to the fact they are going to be a major economic power. To trade internationally, they can't be seen as scofflaws. To that end, they're stepping enforcment of copyrights and so forth. However, they'll do it in such a way that the money stays in China and screws that "foreign devil" MS.
The only thing the developers will really respond to is explicit solid evidence of inappropriate code. They'll remove and reimpliment it. I don't see them giving a hoot about SCO's latest stock pump press release.
There is a problem with this. At what point is the majority of the concert robots on stage? Amplification isn't a problem unless its done very badly. No one expects musicians to fill a 50,000 amphitheatre with human power alone. Amplifiers are just levers for sound. I have no problem with synthesizers if a keyboardist or guitar is actually playing the thing. Synths are just another set of timbres. I'm of two minds on effect units. If they are obviously being used to make well effects then I don't mind. If they're being used to cover up that a guitar player sucks then I have a problem with it. As for the singer, an obvious vocal effect is one thing if it isn't overdone.
However,
Many performers also value the ability to create a completely on-key performance (really tough when you're performing gymnastics up there) so that they can have a good selection of listenable tunes for a live CD.
In that case, the black box is now functioning as a crutch. One of the things I value about a live performance is that it is a performance. A blue note here and there isn't the end of world. I don't go to a live show for that sizzling studio sound, I wanted to see a live show. If there's going to be a robot on stage then get the one from Lost In Space and put a Fender Strat in it's arms.
Anyway, so-called "Live" albums can be tweaked in the editing booth (Frank Zappa's Sheik Yerbouti has a lot of this..but FZ was upfront about what he was doing). There is no need for crutchery at a real show. If there is a need for crutchery then don't do the damn show. It isn't what I paid to see.
A concert where the artist sounds great, or a concert where the artist sounds terrible? If I pay $50 per seat, I'd like to hear something I'll enjoy, whether it is slightly modified or not. Bad music isn't fun.
I wouldn't pay $50 dollars to see an artist who needs a crutch of this magnitude.
An artist who misses a note or two isn't going to sound terrible. Experienced live performers will just keep belting it out rather than tripping over it for several bars. If you expect a Live performance to sound just like the CD you bought then why bother going? You have the CD.
If the artist is so off key that they need this device then you paid $50 dollars too much to see a no-talent hack.
ak-47 is too simplistic for a hackers choice of weapon.
The AK-47 is arguably an elegant piece of engineering. It is reliable, easy to maintain and will likely fire just fine even if it was thrown in the mud.
I rather liked the "for tea: two" theory that was offered earlier up the comments. It ties in nicely with Arthur's tea obsession and tea was important enough to the Nutrimatic to DOS Eddie while the Vogons were attacking. Besides, think of all the intellectual wanking you can get out the cosmic significance of "tea for two".
The sorts of people that would think to order such a CD in the first place are likely already patching their machines. Others will get the CD and misplace it, forget about it entirely, or mistake it for something like an AOL disc and toss it in the trash.
Such a CD would be a boon for the clued user who has nothing but a dial-up connection. Even a slightly out of date one would be useful. If the CD can save me having to download 15MB over a dialup with maybe 4MB to pull from MS then its useful. Not everybody has broadband or a T1, if nothing else MS could make some coin charging a modest fee for these things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give you nothing... and that's my final offer.
Is this a contest for the best offer? I'll raise the offer with my finger.
I'll double that
I'll throw in an arm-crack.
Abuse has been ported to SDL. You may want to dig up the current actively maintained version of Abuse rather than the old version. Nifty game, it has that Psygnosis feel to it.
Of course this could end up being bad, since SCO is owner of the (important note: singular not plural) operating system Linux.
SCO most certainly does not own Linux. At most they may have ownership of inappropriately included code. The vast majority of the Linux codebase is owned by individual and corporate contributes who have and had full rights to do so. Those copyright holders have every right to nail them for infringment. This is why they're spewing this "GPL is public domain." nonsense. They are even more guilty of copyright infringment than anyone who contributed inappropriate code to Linux. They're practicing "a good offense is better than a good defense".
Sooner or later, SCO will have to reveal their so-called evidence. The provenance of the code will be established and anything that doesn't belong will be removed. At that point they can go after the hapless idiots who contributed the 80 lines or so but that is it.
They can be said to own the Caldera variant but it was always a niche distro at best.
While we're on the subject, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark. They won't be claiming that for their own either.
--I greasily rub my finger and thumb together.--
This is the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss for You.".
Basic terms like "if" and "then" are reduced to tokens before compiling or interpreting. It wouldn't be that big a deal to translate them to english equivalents or any other language for that matter. Comments and variable names won't be much use to understanding such a translation though.
I rarely go to the theatres myself. We saw The Two Towers earlier this year and will get a babysitter for The Return of The King. Ticket prices being what they are; I have to know the movie is freakin' awesome ahead of time before I'll go. I get this knowledge by letting my friends see it first; I'm not downloading them...it would just be spoiler city for that THX big screen.
On the other hand, We buy 4-6 DVDs a year. It costs less than a night at the movies for both of us (soon to be all three when my little boy gets older) and we can watch it anytime we want.
My point is that its far cheaper to own a legal copy of the movie than it is for us to go see it. If the movie is only mildly entertaining then I'll wait until it goes out of new release at the rental store and watch it once for three bucks. When the economics weren't so bad, I'd see movies at the theatre all the time. Now I have to pick and choose for maybe two theatre experiences a year.
But the fact is that it is not up to us to dictate a business practice to the RIAA. They represent the copyright holders and it is their right to set the terms for distribution of the music under those copyrights.
That is true...technically. Like any cartel, the RIAA feels that it is entitled to a profit. If they could legally send hired goons to your house with briefcases full of Britney Spears CDs they would do it. At the moment, the copyright holders are exercising their right to set distribution terms that nobody else wants.
Theres another thing thats true. The customer is always right. The RIAA doesn't have a rebellion on their hands; its mass indifference. Sure they've scared people into being reluctant to download but that doesn't mean they'll go out and spend money. Even before the lawsuits, I quit using P2P because of mislabeling, bad rips, bad encoding, and low bitrates. I can't buy or download what I want so I'll do without. I have cable radio and my existing music collection. Good enough.
I'll buy used CDs and that's it. Even if the RIAA didn't completely offend me, they cost too much. We're a one income house and I have a child. I might buy one 8-10 dollar CD every month but I won't buy a 16 dollar one with any frequency. Add in their repugnant business practices and why would I want to give them money?
Nobody can tell me that music costs more to make than movies yet I can buy a DVD of a movie cheaper than it's soundtrack. The MPAA is repulsive too but at least I don't feel ripped off when I buy a DVD.
Yeah, the RIAA doesn't have to permit P2P and they can charge whatever they want and they can exercise their copyrights to the fullest. They just shouldn't be surprised if lots of potential customers give them a pass.
Before you do that, send them a letter asking to identify specifically which parts of Linux are infringing. Don't volunteer anything, just try to get them to elaborate as much as possible. Save all responses and their envelopes and give that to the authorities. Record any phone conversations and indicate at the start you are doing so.
Basically, if they admit on paper that they want payment from you for unsubstantiated claims then they're toast. If they won't admit it, save the copies of that as well. It will make an excellent shield if they try to take you to court. Any refusal to elaborate also makes a good spear if they try to bring collection and credit reporting agencies into it. You'll have a libel case.
What you want is a packet of papers that makes the scam SCO is pulling clear. The "invoice" they send you in and of itself won't mean much without the background information. Mr. Postal Inspector and A.G. probably won't know the blow by blow the way you do. They won't necessarily take your word for it either.
Well, we have three Trek shows named after a place or ship. There's Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise. I think this trend will continue with Berman and Braga's next creative masterpiece. Star Trek Deus Ex Machina. Tune in every week to see how they modify the transporter, holodeck, warp nacelles, or the deflector dish on the Deus Ex Machina to get out the latest jam. Marvel at the richly detailed Treknobabble! That chief engineer and science officer sure are smart!
The powers that be go out of their way to keep DMCA cases away from appellate courts much less the Supreme Court. MS could be providing the opening to force just that test. OSS doesn't even have to be brought into it. Proprietary software businesses are going to need to make software that interoperates with Office. MS really can't pick and choose here. Sure they can selectively ignore some products while prosecuting others but the ones they ignore will be brought up in court. Basically, the question of using the DMCA for anti-competitive purposes can only be put off not ignored.
Why on earth arent most drivers included with windows anyway? All builtin windows drivers are always really old and crappy. Unless you have a severely outdated computer, windows will be a 16 color, soundless, webless hell upon first boot. Except for XP which finally seems to get that no one sane uses 16 colors anymore, or even 640x480.
When a major MS release debuts, it is like that. When 98 first came out, chances were there would be a driver for every device in a then current PC. After about 6 months, it starts getting time to trawl through vendor websites for drivers. Pretty much the same thing happened when 2000 then XP came out.
Remember, most people just go with OEM installs on their new PCs which will have all the drivers. Its the likes of us that set up systems with full install CDs and the latest drivers from the vendors. MS doesn't really have to cater self-installers on their full install media. Anyone using it probably has enough clue to go find drivers.
Linux distros on the other hand attempt to provide you with everything you need. However, the trick there is to use a current distro CD. The same thing happens with distro CDs that happens with new major MS releases. They just occur more frequently.
Build a fence around the Microsoft Campus. The Great Wall of Redmond.
And when the Mongolians come to tear it down, we'll dump sweet-and-sour pork on their heads.
Are you sure about the correct part of SCO's anatomy? SCO will have even more pain considerably south of the tongue.
so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.
That is a rather large assumption. The Windows XP activation scheme has been cracked since day one. For a popular product, activation means that less illicit use rather than no illicit use.
If you get it in the mail, turn it over to your state attorney general. Since they are attempting to collect on militantly unproven claims, you could probably make a good criminal case for fraud.
The money goes to the holding company. In real terms, it isn't SCO that is behind this. The Canopy Group is using SCO as a tool to extract FUD money from Linux and spread it amongst their various properties. Once SCO has served it's purpose, they can shed themselves of it.
Proscecute the businesses that hire the spammers. Roll on them extra hard if they don't give up the spammers they hire. Granted this only takes care of the domestic businesses doing this but if enough countries do it then spamming is no longer a low-cost/low-risk endevour.
What MS hopes is that they can lose money in the short or even middle term to kill OSS as a viable competitor. Once that pesky Linux has been dealt with they can go back to charging full price for the crack rocks.
Your scenario presupposes that OSS goes forwards irregardless of MS does. That may be so but don't underestimate them. Giving out free software in the short term combined with funding the likes of SCO in the medium term along with outlawing OSS in the long term could be fatal. Just because they're weasels doesn't mean they aren't smart.
I would have thought that these schools would not have had any reason whatsoever to let MS (or "antipiracy officials" in general) anywhere near their systems. If anything, I would have thought the Chinese education system was about as immune to this type of treatment as any group of people on the planet
I think China wants at least the appearance of playing by the rules. China is waking up to the fact they are going to be a major economic power. To trade internationally, they can't be seen as scofflaws. To that end, they're stepping enforcment of copyrights and so forth. However, they'll do it in such a way that the money stays in China and screws that "foreign devil" MS.
The only thing the developers will really respond to is explicit solid evidence of inappropriate code. They'll remove and reimpliment it. I don't see them giving a hoot about SCO's latest stock pump press release.
There is a problem with this. At what point is the majority of the concert robots on stage? Amplification isn't a problem unless its done very badly. No one expects musicians to fill a 50,000 amphitheatre with human power alone. Amplifiers are just levers for sound. I have no problem with synthesizers if a keyboardist or guitar is actually playing the thing. Synths are just another set of timbres. I'm of two minds on effect units. If they are obviously being used to make well effects then I don't mind. If they're being used to cover up that a guitar player sucks then I have a problem with it. As for the singer, an obvious vocal effect is one thing if it isn't overdone.
However,
Many performers also value the ability to create a completely on-key performance (really tough when you're performing gymnastics up there) so that they can have a good selection of listenable tunes for a live CD.
In that case, the black box is now functioning as a crutch. One of the things I value about a live performance is that it is a performance. A blue note here and there isn't the end of world. I don't go to a live show for that sizzling studio sound, I wanted to see a live show. If there's going to be a robot on stage then get the one from Lost In Space and put a Fender Strat in it's arms.
Anyway, so-called "Live" albums can be tweaked in the editing booth (Frank Zappa's Sheik Yerbouti has a lot of this..but FZ was upfront about what he was doing). There is no need for crutchery at a real show. If there is a need for crutchery then don't do the damn show. It isn't what I paid to see.
A concert where the artist sounds great, or a concert where the artist sounds terrible? If I pay $50 per seat, I'd like to hear something I'll enjoy, whether it is slightly modified or not. Bad music isn't fun.
I wouldn't pay $50 dollars to see an artist who needs a crutch of this magnitude.
An artist who misses a note or two isn't going to sound terrible. Experienced live performers will just keep belting it out rather than tripping over it for several bars. If you expect a Live performance to sound just like the CD you bought then why bother going? You have the CD.
If the artist is so off key that they need this device then you paid $50 dollars too much to see a no-talent hack.
ak-47 is too simplistic for a hackers choice of weapon.
The AK-47 is arguably an elegant piece of engineering. It is reliable, easy to maintain and will likely fire just fine even if it was thrown in the mud.
I rather liked the "for tea: two" theory that was offered earlier up the comments. It ties in nicely with Arthur's tea obsession and tea was important enough to the Nutrimatic to DOS Eddie while the Vogons were attacking. Besides, think of all the intellectual wanking you can get out the cosmic significance of "tea for two".
The sorts of people that would think to order such a CD in the first place are likely already patching their machines. Others will get the CD and misplace it, forget about it entirely, or mistake it for something like an AOL disc and toss it in the trash.
Such a CD would be a boon for the clued user who has nothing but a dial-up connection. Even a slightly out of date one would be useful. If the CD can save me having to download 15MB over a dialup with maybe 4MB to pull from MS then its useful. Not everybody has broadband or a T1, if nothing else MS could make some coin charging a modest fee for these things.